JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishu Ranjan, A.C. to S.C. III, learned counsel for respondents-State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petitioner for quashing the order dated 14.12.2019 whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the service as Mid-day Meal Data Entry Operator.

4. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator in Mid-day Meal Section in the office of Block Education Extension Officer, Mandu on the basis of daily honorarium w.e.f. 30.10.2012 vide memo no.137 dated 30.10.2012. The petitioner was allowed to continue. The Deputy Director, Jharkhand State Mid-day Meal authority issued a memo dated 30.10.2017 whereby the monthly remuneration of Computer Operator has been fixed as Rs.9,000/- and as the petitioner was discharging his duty since the year 2012, he has also been entitled for regularization of his service on computation of 10 years of continued service on the basis of notification dated 20.06.2019 issued by the Government. By letter dated 25.10.2019, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 24 hours as to why his services could not be terminated. The petitioner has submitted his explanation explaining his stand. The petitioner was again provided second show cause on 09.11.2019. The petitioner replied second show cause explanation on 14.11.2009. By order dated 14.12.2019, the petitioner has been terminated from the service on the basis of charges.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that order has been passed without following well settled principles of natural justice. He submitted that without any enquiry and providing ample opportunity, the impugned order has been passed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-State submitted that the petitioner was appointed to discharge his duties of Data Entry Operator in Mid-day Meal Section in the office of Block Education Extension Office, Mandu on a purely temporary basis on daily honorarium w.e.f. 01.11.2012. The petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned post and he is neither Government servant nor employed on contractual terms and conditions under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. It was the duty of Data Entry Operator to collect, prepare, summarize and preserve the data with instruction to the office head as per the need of the office. But it was found by the District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh that the petitioner did not preserve the data in his computer, did not made PDF files, did not take out print of hard copies of any data base and changed/altered the information with ulterior motive. Manipulation in data base was done without approval of the concerned Clerk or the Officer. Ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner to explain the position as two show cause have already been issued. He submitted that principles of natural justice have been followed.

7. The Court has perused the Annexure-1 whereby the petitioner has been asked to work on daily wage basis. The Annexure-2 is the resolution whereby it has been decided that how much honorarium a data entry operator would get. By way of this resolution, no decision with regard to regularization of service has been taken. The policy dated 20.06.2019 is not applicable to the petitioner as it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was neither appointed on any sanctioned post nor his appointment was regular or irregular. The notification dated 20.06.2019 has been issued pursuant to the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Other